I have read some interesting posts regarding 'mercy killings' et al. Now, I know that it doesn't apply to those on the AS. That would be terrible. I was, however, curious to know what people thought regarding euthanasia (and it is a mercy killing) in general. e.g. If someone had a terrible degenerative disease. I think that euthanasia, assisted suicide, is generally acceptable.
Furthermore, and this is more controversial, what about aborting a disabled child? What if their life would be one of complete pain and discomfort? I'm not talking about those on the AS, rather those that would be completely helpless and probably not even entirely conscious in life. I think that is humane.
Thoughts?
Euthanasia for someone who is already clearly terminally ill with no hope and consents to it clearly is fine by me. If someone is going to die slowly and wants to end it quicker with dignity that is their decision. Personally I plan to hold onto every last breath until the bitter end.
As to aborting a disabled child - I do not believe that this is in any way humane. Some life is better than no life.
Hmmm...perhaps I should have been more explicit. It is possible to identify certain things before the foetus is conscious. Before its brain has developed. Now, unless you're approaching this from a theological perspective, I do not see why one should not be allowed to eject a cluster of cells from the womb...I think that no life is better than a tortured one.
"a tortured one" - ask people alive today with disabilities if they are glad to be here. Most are.
On the question of abortion in general, I would still strongly object to aborting a foetus on the grounds of potential disability alone UNLESS there was a risk to the mother and child. It should also be noted that most woman do not even become aware they are pregnant until after some neural tissue has developed.
Reread my first post. I am disabled. I know people that are disabled. Those that are "not conscious", however, would not be able to answer my question. They are living vegetables. Surely it is humane to prevent it?
Euthanasia is suicide if consensual, murder if not. Christianity does not permit suicide.
Euthanasia is suicide if consensual, murder if not. Christianity does not permit suicide.
Don't you think that's immoral?
Euthanasia is suicide if consensual, murder if not. Christianity does not permit suicide.
Don't you think that's immoral?
Not permitting a person to take one's own life? Generally, no, it is not immoral to prevent suicide. If a person is dead set to end suffering in terminal illness, can't they give them opiates and let them die naturally? My dad refused treatment for bone cancer and died naturally. He was about to go on morphine when he died. (Heroin is actually a superior painkiller I have read, but it is illegal)
"I consider people to have the right to commit suicide even if it's immoral, but people already have that under law and I think (including based on precedents in countries and states that allow this) that allowing special access to suicide for disabled and terminally ill people under law leads to a devaluation of disabled and terminally ill people's lives and a reduction of any sense of necessity of making people's lives livable, especially when it's less expensive to prescribe a lethal dose of medication or something."
What if an individual is not cognisant and therefore, under many assessments, cannot be considered to be living at all? What if the disability corresponds to complete helplessness? I think that seeking assistance in suicide, where you want to die but cannot actually perform the act yourself, is absolutely fine. What value is a life without life?
"People have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment already under the law of my country (and hospitals often have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment to others even if they want to live, and this is already being abused so I think that needs to be cut back on, not opened up to more possibilities)"
Long, painful death. Wonderful. Especially for those with, say, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Degenerative diseases of the mind. The physical pain might be mitigated...but nothing can account for the psychological and intellectual trauma. What if they are incapable of killing themselves?
"people have the right to suicide. I just don't think that a society has any obligation to make suicide easy or pretty."
Why? Suicide is a philosophical question rather than anything else. Why shouldn't it be easy to take your life? Why shouldn't it be clean?
"I think a society in fact has an obligation not to selectively make suicide easy or pretty for select groups of people and not others, this has been shown to always increase discrimination and ill-treatment."
Has it? Could you cite some examples? From what I understand, observing the European cases, individuals simply end their lives in a clean and efficient manner. It does not really alter the collective psychology. Discrimination and ill-treatment are a consequence of pre-existing prejudices, often augmented in religion or the individualist-capitalist mentality, and are rarely accentuated in the manner you describe.
"And I'm saying this as a person who has a pain condition that, prior to effective treatments, was well-known for causing suicides. I would rather have to, if I wanted to kill myself, either endure the pain (even the unendurable levels of it, which I'm quite familiar with), or kill myself in a way that was messy..."
That is your choice. I respect that. Should you prevent others from being able to make their choice?
"rather have only those options, than live in a society that makes it easy for disabled and severely ill people to kill ourselves but (as has been shown to happen when it is allowed) doesn't bother to make it easy for us to live."
Again, I do not think that this represents, say, eugenics by stealth. It illustrates societal deficiencies. I do not think that it dehumanises individuals.
"In my country, at least, even living wills and powers of attorney for healthcare don't protect a person. It's already far easier to die than it is to live if you're disabled or terminally ill."
Which country is this?
"We don't need it more easy, and this sort of thing always ends up making it harder to live and easier to die."
Really? I do not agree.
"This isn't by the way about a fear of death, it's about a fear of being killed, two very different things."
Yes. Vigilance is a necessity. I do not think that doctors and lawyers are conspiring against us. That's ridiculous. I think that there are some cases where the authority has been exercised illegitimately. That merely indicates that it needs to be more closely monitored. It does not mean that the general notion of euthanasia is a bad one.
"There have also been instances where people have signed an advanced directive, and then, when they sustained brain injuries or strokes, been able to indicate a wish to live, but been also considered incompetent to make that wish and been starved to death."
They should not have been starved. How can one be sure that they are competent? Unfortunately it's difficult. If you sign an advanced directive...deal with the consequences. There is no way of telling that an individual is of sound mind after a stroke or following brain injuring. I have lived with people that experienced such things. They were cognisant, to an extent, but fundamentally different people. That is important: account for the change in personality and mentality.
"Also note that even people who have chosen death change their mind sometimes. Committing suicide on your own allows you to change your mind at the last second, as most people do."
Do they? I am of the opinion that anyone that really, entirely, wants to commit suicide then they will. Having been in that situation myself, and being forcibly prevented.
"Asking for help to commit suicide takes that ability away from you, and in fact it has already happened that at least one assisted suicide went through over a person's last-second protests not to kill them"
Citation?
"that person found it very difficult to speak clearly and the person killing him had no understanding of the guy's speech."
How do they know that he was protesting then?
"Basically I think this sort of thing sounds good to people interested in individual liberties, but it's not really about individual liberties at all in the end, it results in a loss of liberty higher than any gain in it. It dismays me that it gets put onto liberal and libertarian agendas so often, because it's just not (nor is it a conservative agenda, just to make that clear)."
It is entirely humane provided it is well monitored and regulated.
I think that this topic is too controversial and too broad to get into in this forum. Bad things are bad. Good things are good.
Do right and fear no man.
Who decides what is good and what is bad?
"That is probably going to drop me neck-deep into a vicious flame war, but I could not bring a child into this world, who's only future would be a few years of suffering and deterioration, and I stand by it."
Your decision would be humane.
"Wondering, what about those people who can communicate somehow, yet are totally unable to physically initiate anything without the aid of another? what for people in that situation who want to end their lives painlessly? should they be denied that right because they cannot do it for themselves?"
Of course not...that's the point of euthanasia.
I am a libertarian - for others - and hold my own (religious or otherwise)values to hold myself upto. I am also a protector of whoever needs it - within my sight. My immediate cause is focused on my children, protecting them, yet nurturing the knowledge in them of free will. You better bet, I'll teach them to respect, acknowledge and be thankful for all the talents and blessings they have as well as their supposed shortcmings and difficulties. I say to each their own and "don't tread on me".
The contradiction here is that without government and regulation people will always be trod on.
The government here does little BUT tread on peoples toes, bunch of self interested snakes that care nothing for the people from the picosecond they run out of money to line the politician's pockets with.
Just keep reminding yourself that it could be infinitely worse. It could be the Tories.
I am certainly in favour of assisted suicide, whether the person assisting is a physician or someone else. Currently, in the UK those who seek exemption from prosecution for those who assist their suicide are having their wishes denied. In practice, those who assist the suicide of a competent, terminally ill adult are prosecuted, but rarely convicted or jailed. Some chose to go to Switzerland to end their lives.
Ideally, palliative care should be provided for all who require it and assisted suicide available for those for whom palliative care is insufficient. The state of Oregon permits assisted suicide and has found that those who go through with it tend to be people who have particular personality traits and who have lived very independent lives. Even though their physical suffering may be relieved, their existential suffering remains and their dignity is severely compromised.
My Dad (AS, bit of a liberal) thinks the only way to maintain the worlds population is by having another world war.
My old man (A bit AS, bit of a commie) says exactly the same thing, Ian, and says the human race evolved to have a jolly great war every generation or two to mop up the excess population. He's a cheery old sod.
As for aborting disabled babies... we've already debated that so many times here already I don't have the energy to buy into it yet again.
But, I am in favour of voluntary euthanasia. It would be hypocritical not to, since I've tried to kill myself three times.
Ideally, palliative care should be provided for all who require it and assisted suicide available for those for whom palliative care is insufficient.
Effective palliative care should never be insufficient.
It shouldn't be. The trouble is, some medical staff don't give people in pain sufficient painkillers because they worry it will hasten their death. If their life is one of constant pain and suffering and the intention is only to ease their agony, then I can't see the problem if they die sooner rather than later.
Ideally, palliative care should be provided for all who require it and assisted suicide available for those for whom palliative care is insufficient.
Effective palliative care should never be insufficient.
No matter how good palliative care is, there will always be a small group of people for whom death is preferable. That is why I referred to existential as opposed to physical suffering. Experience in Oregon and the Netherlands has shown that there will always be some for whom death is preferable. Research has shown that these people share certain personality traits, ie, controlling and independent.
In Oregon and the Netherlands two third of those who discuss assisted suicide with doctors actually die of natural causes, but they do so with the security of mind that comes from knowing that assisted suicide is available should they feel their suffering has become unbearable. For them it is a kind of insurance policy. The remaining third are those whose suffering is unbearable, usually not because of pain, but rather the loss of independence and dignity.